Wilfried warning

portion of the continental landmasses resubmerged because

the fifth day was predominantly the day of marine life.

During the third day the extent of terrestrial surface was increasing, on

the fourth day it diminished, and on the fifth it again increased, and

probably has on the whole continued to increase up to the present time.

One most important geological consequence of this is that the marine

animals of the fifth day probably commenced their existence on sea bottoms which were the old soil surfaces of submerged continents

previously clothed with vegetation, and which consequently contained

much organic matter fitted to form a basis of support for the newly created

animals.¹⁵⁶
All the animals created on the fifth day were attributed to the

Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras. The sixth day belonged to the

Tertiary period, the age of mammals. On the latter point he

was in general agreement with Guyot.

Brief mention may also be made of George Frederick

Wright, the last of the great nineteenth-century Christian ge-

ologists. Throughout his long career Wright addressed ques-

tions relating to the integration of Christianity and geology.

In 1882, in Studies in Science and Religion,¹⁵⁷ Wright noted that

he was not impressed with the efforts of other geologists to

achieve concord. "In many of these attempts it is difficult to

tell which has been most distorted, the rocks or the sacred

record."¹⁵⁸ Calling Genesis 1 a "remarkable ‘proem' " Wright

believed that

reconciled, but polytheism which they wished to cut up root and branch....

When thus we consider it as a protest against polytheism, and an enforce-

ment of the first two commandments, it seems an impertinence to endeavor

to find all modern science in the document, however easy it may be for

science to find shelter under the drapery of its rhetoric.¹⁵⁹

F. Draper, 1882).

276 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

affirmed that God was Creator. The sun, sky, animals, and so

on were all creatures of the one true God and should not be

the objects of worship.

Wright later changed his mind and undertook the very effort

he earlier condemned. In Scientific Confirmations of Old Testament

upon the adaptation of the document to the immediate pur-

pose of counteracting the polytheistic tendencies of the Is-

raelites."¹⁶¹ Upon further reflection he was so impressed by

the writings of Dana and Guyot that he saw "in this account

a systematic arrangement of creative facts which corresponds

so closely with the order of creation as revealed by modern

science that we cannot well regard it as accidental."¹⁶² His

thumbnail review of the correspondence of Genesis 1 and the

order of geology was essentially taken over from the Guyot-

Dana position.
3. Nineteenth-Century Concordism--the Flood
Because concordists felt the cumulative weight of geological

evidence against the notion of a global deluge that deposited

the entire stratigraphic column, harmonistic concerns shifted

from the flood to the creation account. Nevertheless the flood

played an important subsidiary role in their thought. Here,

too, concordists adjusted their interpretations of the flood

story to the constraints of the geological data. During the

early nineteenth century there was still widespread belief in

a catastrophic flood of continental or global proportions even

among mainstream geologists and naturalists who were con-

vinced of the earth's antiquity. The presumed effects of that

flood, however, had been reduced. For example, William

Buckland, who was anxious that geology continue its support

for the Mosaic record of the flood, identified numerous sur-

ficial gravels, erratic boulders, and broad river valleys dis-
¹⁶⁰ George Frederick Wright, Scientific Confirmations of Old Testament History

(Oberlin, Ohio: Bibliotheca Sacra, 1906).

SCRIPTURE IN THE HANDS OF GEOLOGISTS 277

catastrophic deluge.¹⁶³

Buckland's proposals regarding the flood encountered op-

position on both scientific and biblical grounds. The Scottish

naturalist and Presbyterian minister, John Fleming, said that

Buckland's flood "occasioned the destruction of all the in-

dividuals of many species of quadrupeds."¹⁶⁴ But that was

clearly contrary to the Mosaic account, for Moses expressly

stated that some of all kinds of animals were preserved in the

ark. This preservation was identified as a preservation of "spe-

cies ": "we have revelation, declaring that, of all species of

quadrupeds a male and female were spared and preserved

during the deluge."¹⁶⁵

Secondly, Fleming maintained that Buckland's deluge was

"sudden, transient, universal, simultaneous, rushing with an

overwhelming impetuosity, infinitely more powerful than the

most violent waterspouts."¹⁶⁶ Fleming took issue with such

diluvial attributes.

In the history of the Noachian deluge by Moses, there is not a term em-

ployed which indicates any one of the characters, except universality, at-

tributed to the geological deluge. On the contrary, the flood neither

approached nor retired suddenly.... There is no notice taken of the furious

movements of the waters, which must have driven the ark violently to and

fro.¹⁶⁷

the flood. Buckland's flood "excavated, in its fury, deep val-

leys, tearing up portions of the solid rock, and transporting

to a distance the wreck which it had produced." 168 But if that

had happened,
¹⁶³ See William Buckland, Reliquiae diluvianae (London: John Murray, 1823 ).

Later in his career, Buckland became convinced of the adequacy of the glacial

hypothesis to account for the boulders, gravels, widened valleys, and many

of the vertebrate deposits. As a result, he manfully recanted his earlier com-

mitment to a catastrophic deluge theory.

¹⁶⁴ John Fleming, "The Geological Deluge, as interpreted by Baron Cuvier

and Professor Buckland, inconsistent with the testimony of Moses and the

Phenomena of Nature," Edinburgh Philosophical Journal 14 (1826) 211.

¹⁶⁵ Ibid., 212.

¹⁶⁶ Ibid., 213.

¹⁶⁷ Ibid.

¹⁶⁸ Ibid.

278 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

lakes, and valleys, and seas, now existing in places formerly occupied by

rocks, and the courses of rivers greatly altered. In the Book of Genesis

there is no such change hinted at. On the contrary, the countries and rivers

which existed before the flood, do not appear, from any thing said in the

Scriptures, to have experienced any change in consequence of that event.

But if the supposed impetuous torrent excavated valleys, and transported

masses of rocks to a distance from their original repositories, then must

the soil have been swept from off the earth, to the destruction of the

vegetable tribes. Moses does not record such an occurrence. On the con-

trary, in his history of the dove and the olive-leaf plucked off, he furnishes

a proof that the flood was not so violent in its motions as to disturb the

soil, nor to overturn the trees which it supported; nor was the ground

rendered, by the catastrophe, unfit for the cultivation of the vine.¹⁶⁹

general lack of substantial geological activity, Fleming com-

mented that he did not expect to find any marks or memorials

to the flood. As a matter of fact, if he had "witnessed every

valley and gravel-bed, nay, every fossil bone, attesting the

ravages of the dreadful scene, I would have been puzzled to

account for the unexpected difficulties; and might have been

induced to question the accuracy of Moses as an historian, or

the claims of the Book of Genesis to occupy its present place

in the sacred record."¹⁷⁰

Fleming's tranquil flood theory was not widely adopted.

Later concordists who accepted the historical reality of the

flood believed that the flood had left significant geological

relics. However, the flood was considered to be geographically

restricted. Hugh Miller eloquently argued against the geo-

graphic universality of the flood and spoke of the "palpable

monstrosities" associated with universal deluge theories. In

the nature of the case, Miller argued, there could have been

no eye-witness to the extent of the flood. If Noah and his

family were the only survivors there was no way they could

have observed that the flood had been universal. God could

have revealed such geographic facts, but then "God's reve-

lations have in most instances been made to effect exclusively

moral purposes; and we know that those who have perilously

held that, along with the moral facts, definite physical facts,
¹⁶⁹ Ibid., 213-14.

¹⁷⁰ Ibid., 214.

SCRIPTURE IN THE HANDS OF GEOLOGISTS 279

parted, have almost invariably found themselves involved in

monstrous error."¹⁷¹ The moral significance of the flood

would not be altered by a reduction in its extent. Miller stated

that universal language was commonly used in Scripture for

more limited events. In many instances it was clear from the

text that such a limitation was inherent, "but there is no such

explanation given to limit or restrict most of the other pas-

sages; the modifying element must be sought for outside the

sacred volume."¹⁷² The flood story fell into that latter cate-

gory.

Almost all the texts of Scripture in which questions of physical science are

be sought for in that outside region of secular research, historic and sci-

entific, from which of late years so much valuable biblical illustration has

been derived, and with which it is so imperatively the duty of the Church

to keep up an acquaintance at least as close and intimate as that maintained

with it by her gainsayers and assailants.¹⁷³

flood.

of the flood concerned the problem of getting animals to and

from the ark. Supposing for the sake of argument the validity

of the idea that the flood involved elevation of the sea bed

and sinking of landmasses, Miller poked fun at some of the

inherent impossibilities of the universal deluge.

were continents and all the continents oceans,--between the South Amer-

ican and the Asiatic coasts. And it is just possible that, during the hundred

and twenty years in which the ark was in building, a pair of sloths might

have crept by inches across this continuous tract, from where the skeletons

of the great megatheria¹⁷⁴ are buried, to where the great vessel stood. But

after the Flood had subsided, and the change in sea and land had taken

place, there would remain for them no longer a roadway; and so, though

their journey outwards might, in all save the impulse which led to it, have

been altogether a natural one, their voyage homewards could not be other

than miraculous. Nor would the exertion of miracle have had to be re-
¹⁷¹ Miller, Testimony, 300-301.

¹⁷² Ibid., 302.

¹⁷³ Ibid., 302-3.

¹⁷⁴ Megatherium was a gigantic extinct sloth.

280 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

had the Flood been universal, could even such islands as Great Britain and

Ireland have ever been replenished with many of their original inhabitants?

Even supposing it possible that animals, such as the red deer and the native

ox might have swam across the Straits of Dover or the Irish Channel, to

graze anew over deposits in which the bones and horns of their remote

ancestors had been entombed long ages before, the feat would have been

surely far beyond the power of such feeble natives of the soil as the mole,

the hedgehog, the shrew, the dormouse, and the field-vole.¹⁷⁵
Though firmly convinced of a local deluge, Miller admitted

being on "weak ground" when discussing the location and

mechanism of the flood. He suggested that the very large,

depressed area of central Asia around the Caspian, Black, and

Aral seas might have been the locus of the flood. He claimed

that if a "trench-like strip of country that communicated be-

tween the Caspian and the Gulf of Finland" were "depressed

beneath the level of the latter sea, it would so open up the

populous region."¹⁷⁶ If the area were depressed by 400 feet

per day, the basin would subside to a depth of 16,000 feet

within forty days and the highest mountains of the district

would be drowned. If volcanic outbursts were associated with

such a depression of the land, the atmosphere would be so

affected that "heavy drenching rains" would have descended

the entire time.

Dawson, following Miller, suggested that the flood was a

local event and that subsidence of an inhabited land area

resulted in large scale flooding and entombment of the pre-

diluvian races beneath deposits of mud and silt around the

Caspian Sea.
The physical agencies evoked by the divine power to destroy this ungodly

race were a subsidence of the region they inhabited, so as to admit the

oceanic waters, and extensive atmospherical disturbances connected with

that subsidence, and perhaps with the elevation of neighboring regions.

In this case it is possible that the Caspian Sea, which is now more than

eighty feet below the level of the ocean, and which was probably much

more extensive then than at present, received much of the drainage of the

flood, and that the mud and sand deposits of this sea and the adjoining

SCRIPTURE IN THE HANDS OF GEOLOGISTS 281

that exist of the antediluvian population.¹⁷⁷

undation of a huge tract of central Asia. To Wright the biblical

account "represents the Flood as caused not so much by the

rising of the water, as by the sinking of the land. It says that

all the fountains of the great deep were broken up."¹⁷⁸ As a

glacial geologist, Wright related the flood to glacial action.

The removal of enormous quantities of water from the ocean

and their inclusion in massive glacial sheets caused redistri-

bution of weight on the earth's surface. The ice sheets de-

pressed the landmasses while the ocean beds were elevated

as the load of water was removed. These readjustments led

to pressures that reinforced depression of portions of the

landmasses.¹⁷⁹ One of the great depressed areas was that of

central Asia in which early mankind was living. At the end of

the ice age, enormous amounts of glacial meltwater returned

to the oceans and also temporarily drowned the great basin

of central Asia. The Caspian, Aral, and Black Seas, and Lake

Baikal were said to be remnants of that vast depression.

Since the nineteenth century, Christian geologists became

a silent minority. For several decades few harmonizations of

Scripture with geological data were attempted.¹⁸⁰ Then in

1977, a sudden flurry of concordist works appeared beginning

with my Creation and the Flood.¹⁸¹ My scheme resembled the

day-age proposals of Miller, Dana, Guyot, and Dawson. The

geological data were updated, and it was proposed that the

events of the six days were overlapping. A diagram illustrated

how the days of creation might have overlapped. Genesis 1

this period is B. Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture (Grand Rapids:

Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1954). It should, however, be recognized that Ramm

spoke as a theologian trained in the sciences rather than as a scientist.

282 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

of each day so that the creative events of each day were not

necessarily restricted to that day. For example, bird formation

was envisioned as possibly continuing into day six, and the

creation of mammals was viewed as being initiated prior to

day six and reaching its climax on that day.¹⁸²

I suggested that the creation of earth on day one referred

to a partially organized body not yet fit for life and habitation.

The deep was an initial ocean that covered the globe prior

to continent formation.¹⁸³ The light of day one had reference

only to earth; it was "radiant energy falling on the earth's surface

for the first time.¹⁸⁴ I denied that this creation of light had

anything to do with the so-called Big Bang hypothesis.¹⁸⁵

The division of waters related to the clouds above and

watery oceans beneath; the creation of the firmament involved

the development of the atmosphere. The waters accumulated

into ocean basins, and continental landmasses appeared on

the third day. It was admitted that "some difficulties are readily

apparent in correlating Genesis with paleobotany."¹⁸⁶ The

problem was that "different categories of plants seem to have

arisen over widely-spaced times."¹⁸⁷ Like Guyot and Dawson,

I noted that Genesis places plants before animals but that

geology reverses the order. I suggested that future paleon-

tological work would disclose more information about the

origins of plants and that the biasing of early Paleozoic rocks

in favor of marine deposits had led us to overlook the possible

importance of terrestrial land plants that might have existed

earlier than we had thought. After a century of intense pa-

leontological investigation and of day-age concordism, I did

no better with the plant-animal sequence than had Guyot or

Dawson. Although more open to evolution than Dawson, I

nevertheless thought that the expression "after his kind" sug-

SCRIPTURE IN THE HANDS OF GEOLOGISTS 283

patible with the general plant evolution.¹⁸⁸

I, too, insisted that the absolute origin of the sun, moon,

and stars did not occur on the fourth day. The function of

the heavenly bodies with respect to earth was in view. "The

point seems to be that at this time the earth comes into its

present and final relationship to the sun so that now the sun

and moon can serve as time regulators for the earth."¹⁸⁹

In 1983, John Wiester published a fine summary of current

geological and astronomical findings within the constraints of

the day-age theory.¹⁹⁰ Wiester said little about Gen 1:2 and

linked that verse with the moment of creation or even "before

the beginning." He made no effort to identify the great deep.

Of this verse he said, "The most we can say scientifically about

‘before the beginning’ is that we know nothing about it. The

scientific quest has reached a barrier it cannot penetrate. Time

and space have no meaning or existence. We must turn to

the Scripture at this point."¹⁹¹ Creation therefore began with

the pronouncement of God, "Let there be light." This light

was identified with the Big Bang of modern cosmology. "Sci-

ence now fully agrees with the Bible that the Universe began

with light. It is time our textbooks reflected the harmony of

science with the first creation command in Genesis."¹⁹²

Wiester attributed the formation of the atmosphere to day

two. During its early history the earth went through a molten

stage, characterized by segregation of materials in the interior

as well as outgassing of volatile substances. The outgassed

material separated into seas and a cloudy atmosphere. The

waters were gathered into ocean basins and continents ap-

peared. Wiester claimed that the creation of the sun on day

four related to clearing of the atmosphere. He suggested that

"the primordial atmosphere of carbon dioxide and other

smog-like gases had to be purified,"¹⁹³ and that Gen 1:15 has

in view "the transformation of light from the Sun into a ben-